↓ Skip to main content

On recursion

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
78 X users
reddit
1 Redditor
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
156 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On recursion
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey Watumull, Marc D. Hauser, Ian G. Roberts, Norbert Hornstein

Abstract

It is a truism that conceptual understanding of a hypothesis is required for its empirical investigation. However, the concept of recursion as articulated in the context of linguistic analysis has been perennially confused. Nowhere has this been more evident than in attempts to critique and extend Hauseretal's. (2002) articulation. These authors put forward the hypothesis that what is uniquely human and unique to the faculty of language-the faculty of language in the narrow sense (FLN)-is a recursive system that generates and maps syntactic objects to conceptual-intentional and sensory-motor systems. This thesis was based on the standard mathematical definition of recursion as understood by Gödel and Turing, and yet has commonly been interpreted in other ways, most notably and incorrectly as a thesis about the capacity for syntactic embedding. As we explain, the recursiveness of a function is defined independent of such output, whether infinite or finite, embedded or unembedded-existent or non-existent. And to the extent that embedding is a sufficient, though not necessary, diagnostic of recursion, it has not been established that the apparent restriction on embedding in some languages is of any theoretical import. Misunderstanding of these facts has generated research that is often irrelevant to the FLN thesis as well as to other theories of language competence that focus on its generative power of expression. This essay is an attempt to bring conceptual clarity to such discussions as well as to future empirical investigations by explaining three criterial properties of recursion: computability (i.e., rules in intension rather than lists in extension); definition by induction (i.e., rules strongly generative of structure); and mathematical induction (i.e., rules for the principled-and potentially unbounded-expansion of strongly generated structure). By these necessary and sufficient criteria, the grammars of all natural languages are recursive.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 78 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
France 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 100 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 19%
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Master 13 12%
Professor 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 31 28%
Psychology 13 12%
Computer Science 10 9%
Philosophy 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 21 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2015.
All research outputs
#732,167
of 25,826,146 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,522
of 34,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,479
of 321,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#18
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,826,146 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.